Content Based on User's IP Address
-
Hello,
A client wants us to create a page on two different sites (www.brandA.com/content and www.brandB.com/content) with similar content and serve up specific content to users based on their IP addresses.
The idea is that once a user gets to the page, the content would slightly change (mainly contact information and headers) based on their location. The problem I am seeing with this is that both brandA and brandB would be different Urls so there is a chance if their both optimized for the similar terms then they would both rank and crowd up the search results (duplicate content).
Have you seen something similar? What are your thoughts and/or potential solutions?
Also, do you know of any sites that are currently doing something similar?
-
Are you asking rather than having two site brandA.com & brandB.com is there a way to create brand.com and on that site display the content relevant to the visitors location? If not then I agree with EGOL
-
I would kill the weaker site, redirect it to the stronger, and attack with all my energy and effort going into a single site.
Your current situation sounds like one guy trying to drive two cars at same time.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google Search Console 'Change of Address' Just 301s on source domain?
Hi all. New here, so please be gentle. 🙂 I've developed a new site, where my client also wanted to rebrand from .co.nz to .nz On the source (co.nz) domain, I've setup a load of 301 redirects to the relevant new page on the new domain (the URL structure is changing as well).
Technical SEO | | WebGuyNZ
E.G. On the old domain: https://www.mysite.co.nz/myonlinestore/t-shirt.html
In the HTACCESS on the old/source domain, I've setup 301's (using RewriteRule).
So that when **https://www.mysite.co.nz/**myonlinestore/t-shirt.html is accessed, it does a 301 to;
https://mysite.nz/shop/clothes/t-shirt All these 301's are working fine. I've checked in dev tools and a 301 is being returned. My question is, is having the 301's just on the source domain only enough, in regards to starting a 'Change of Address' in Google's Search Console? Their wording indicates it's enough but I'm concerned, maybe I also need redirects on the target domain as well? I.E. Does the Search Console Change of Address process work this way?
It looks at the source domain URL (that's already in Google's index), sees the 301 then updates the index (and hopefully pass the link juice) to the new URL. Also, I've setup both source and target Search Console properties as Domain Properties. Does that mean I no longer need to specify that the source and target properties are HTTP or HTTPS? I couldn't see that option when I created the properties. Thanks!0 -
These days on Google results, it also shows the site map. I submitted my company's sitemap and it still does not show?What am I doing wrong?
Look at the image in the link. I want my company to look like the "pluralsight" website in Google. I want it to show the sitemap. I have already submitted the sitemap to Google few days back, what am I doing wrong? search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=pluralsight&oq=pluralsight&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.11024j0j8
Technical SEO | | Deein0 -
IT's Hurt My Rank?HELP!!!
hi,guys,john here, i just began use the MOZ service several days ago, recently i noticed one thing that one keyword on the first google search result page, but when i done some external links,the rank down from 1 to 8, i think may be the bad quality external links caused the rank down. so my question,should i delete the bad quality links or build more better quality links? which is better for me. easy to delete the bad links and hard to build high quality links. so what's your better opinion,guys? thanks John
Technical SEO | | smokstore0 -
Re: Auto Detection of Currency based on IP & Google SEO
Greetings to the fellow Moz community members! On an e-commerce site, I am using a script to change the default currency of storefront based on IP detection ( GBP for UK visitors, CAD for Canadian visitors and so on). My question is : can this create any problems at all in Google Crawling or Indexing? Will google be able to understand the setup? I don't think this should trigger the "cloaking" or presenting different content to search engines vs users, but just want to double check from the collective wisdom here. Thanks for reading, and wish you a good day ahead. Warm Regards Amit
Technical SEO | | amitgg0 -
Specific question about pagination prompted by Adam Audette's Presentation at RKG Summit
This question is prompted by something Adam Audette said in this excellent presentation: http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/top-5-seo-conundrums/08062012/ First, I will lay out the issues: 1. All of our paginated pages have the same URL. To view this in action, go here: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/audio-technica , scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "Next" - look at the URL. The URL is: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher, and for every page after it, the same URL. 2. All of the paginated pages with non-unique URLs have canonical tags referencing the first page of the paginated series. 3. http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher has been instructed to be neither crawled nor indexed by Google. Now, on to what Adam said in his presentation: At about minute 24 Adam begins talking about pagination. At about 27:48 in the video, he is discussing the first of three ways to properly deal with pagination issues. He says [I am somewhat paraphrasing]: "Pages 2-N should have self-referencing canonical tags - Pages 2-N should all have their own unique URLs, titles and meta descriptions...The key is, with this is you want deeper pages to get crawled and all the products on there to get crawled too. The problem that we see a lot is, say you have ten pages, each one using rel canonical pointing back to page 1, and when that happens, the products or items on those deep pages don't get get crawled...because the rel canonical tag is sort of like a 301 and basically says 'Okay, this page is actually that page.' All the items and products on this deeper page don't get the love." Before I get to my question, I'll just throw out there that we are planning to fix the pagination issue by opting for the "View All" method, which Adam suggests as the second of three options in this video, so that fix is coming. My question is this: It seems based on what Adam said (and our current abysmal state for pagination) that the products on our paginated pages aren't being crawled or indexed. However, our products are all indexed in Google. Is this because we are submitting a sitemap? Even so, are we missing out on internal linking (authority flow) and Google love because Googlebot is finding way more products in our sitemap that what it is seeing on the site? (or missing out in other ways?) We experience a lot of volatility in our rankings where we rank extremely well for a set of products for a long time, and then disappear. Then something else will rank well for a while, and disappear. I am wondering if this issue is a major contributing factor. Oh, and did I mention that our sort feature sorts the products and imposes that new order for all subsequent visitors? it works like this: If I go to that same Audio-Technica page, and sort the 125+ resulting products by price, they will sort by price...but not just for me, for anyone who subsequently visits that page...until someone else re-sorts it some other way. So if we merchandise the order to be XYZ, and a visitor comes and sorts it ZYX and then googlebot crawls, google would potentially see entirely different products on the first page of the series than the default order marketing intended to be presented there....sigh. Additional thoughts, comments, sympathy cards and flowers most welcome. 🙂 Thanks all!
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Content not being spidered
I've got a site with some serious content issues. The builder of the template doesn't understand what I'm asking (they're confusing spidering with indexing). If the page is run through a spider simulator (web confs won't work on this site for some reason) it shows the content is not being seen by Google. The template is Momentum and on Joomla. Most other sites I've found on the web have a similar issue. Basically it's reading the text in the header and footer, but nothing in the body. Any thoughts? www.rocksolidroof.com
Technical SEO | | GregWalt0 -
Lots of Pages Dropped Out of Google's Index?
Until yesterday, my website had about 1200 pages indexed in Google. I did lots of changes: removed low quality content, rewrote passable content to make it better, wrote high quality content, got lots of likes and shares on social networks, etc. Now this morning I see that out of 1252 pages submitted, only 691 are indexed. Is that a temporary situation related to the recent updates? Anyone seeing this? What should I interpret about this?
Technical SEO | | sbrault740 -
No Google cached snapshot image... 'Text-only version' working.
We are having an issue with Googles cached image snapshops... Here is an example: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IyvADsGi10gJ:shop.deliaonline.com/store/home-and-garden/kitchen/morphy-richards-48781-cooking/ean/5011832030948+&cd=308&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk I wondered if anyone knows or can see the cause of this problem? Thanks
Technical SEO | | pekler1
